Search smh:

Search in:

Venice plan raises ire

Ray Edgar

Don Bates says the competition should be about imagination, not a big CV. Photo: Penny Stephens

THE promise of a new Australian pavilion in Venice bobs around like a gondola on the grand canal. One minute architects' hopes are afloat over the announcement of a new pavilion. The next, their hopes are dashed with news that only a select invited group will pitch for it.

However, after 750 architects signed a petition calling for an open competition and consultations with the Australian Institute of Architects, the Australia Council has changed tack. An ''open'' competition will be launched in August.

The catch this time, to some at least, is that it's open only to Australian architects with both experience designing a public art gallery and working internationally.

While the Australia Council and the AIA consider it a victory, the organisers of the petition see it as a lost opportunity.

Advertisement

''It's a terrible outcome because it excludes emerging practices,'' says architect Christine Phillips, co-organiser of the petition. ''If you're immediately asking for that level of experience there's no way younger architects can get a foot in the door.''

''We had never built anything before Fed Square,'' says Don Bates, director of Lab Architecture Studio. ''Had Fed Square gone down that [experience-only] route - and it's a much more complex project than the Venice biennale pavilion - then we wouldn't have been selected.

''Coming up with something that really makes us rethink what an exhibition space can be is about imagination. It's not about previous history and background and a big CV and a big portfolio of projects that may seem similar.''

The downside to choosing architects with experience is that you get a building based on what they've done in the past, he says.

''The noise around 'start with design and then deal with credentials' doesn't actually cut the mustard at all with me,'' says Simon Mordant, the businessman and philanthropist co-ordinating the new pavilion for the Australia Council. ''It's not an ideas competition. The government who own the site, and the private-sector donors who are putting up the money for the redevelopment, will only want to work with someone who can deliver the project.

''This has to start with the credentials and then go on to the design, not the other way around,'' says Mordant, who raised $53 million for the extension to Sydney's Museum of Contemporary Art.

For the Venice pavilion, the target is $6 million to design a building essentially the size of a small house (320 square metres). But it's a ''house'' on high-profile, valuable real estate. Australia is only one of 29 countries to have a pavilion in the Venice gardens, yet 60 more countries attend the biennale.

''They have to fight not only to find rented space but also to get audiences to go to their spaces because they are not in the central location,'' says Mordant. ''So Australia is blessed to have this site.''

The two-stage competition, chosen from the AIA guidelines, calls for expressions of interest to be lodged within a six-week period. During August the Australia Council will release the criteria against which those credentials will be evaluated. From those submissions a shortlist will be produced, then a detailed design brief issued. Those shortlisted will be asked to produce their designs and budget for the project.

The intention is for the final architect to be selected by early 2012 and plans lodged for approval with Venetian authorities within six months, so that construction beginning after the 2013 biennale and in time for the 2015 event.

''If we can harness that passion we are going to deliver for the people of Australia a lasting piece of critical infrastructure that everybody will be grateful for,'' says Mordant. ''And I'm very hopeful that this one will last 25 years-plus and will put Australia's position in the international cont art space even better than where we are now.''